Public Bill Committee

[Mrs. Joan Humble in the Chair]

Joan Humble: May I welcome everyone to the Committee? Before we begin the consideration of the Bill I have a few preliminary announcements. Although it is not very warm, Members may, if they wish, remove their jackets in Committee. There is a money resolution in connection with the Bill and copies are available. Please would all Members ensure that mobile phones, pagers and so on are turned off or switched to silent mode during Committee? I have not selected the two amendments on the amendment paper, so we shall move straight to clause stand part debates on each clause, if the Committee wishes to debate them all.

Clause 1

Matters to which this Part applies

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Raynsford: It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs. Humble. It is the first time I have done so as the promoter of a Bill, although I have done so in my more normal Back-Bench position. The Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on 16 December. I have, however, been asked to see it through its remaining stages in this House.
I am grateful to all Members who have agreed to serve on this Committee at rather short notice, and I ask them all to accept my apologies both for that short notice and for some of the rough edges that may affect the procedures in Committee. It was clear to me when I was asked last week to take on the Bill that we had to move speedily if it was to have any prospect of making progress before the coming general election.
I am also grateful for the support that was voiced for the Bill in all parts of the House on Second Reading. It is a measure to enhance and expand the capacity of local authorities to scrutinise activities undertaken by other bodies discharging public service responsibilities in their areas, and as such, it contributes to the localist agenda that I know has support on both sides of the House.
I know that there will be questions posedabout points of detail in the Bill, and where it is not possible for those to be fully considered in Committee, I hope they will be considered on Report. However, I believe that the overall purpose and objectives are widely supported, so I hope that the Bill can make good progress. As on Second Reading, I should make clear my non-pecuniary interest as chairman of the Centre for Public Scrutiny, a not-for-profit organisation that exists to promote better and more effective scrutiny.
I hope that it will help the Committee if I give a short outline of the purpose of clause 1. The clause sets out the framework for the enhanced scrutiny powers provided by part 1 of the Bill. Subsections (1) to (4) provide that the enhanced scrutiny powers will apply when overview and scrutiny committees are scrutinising matters of local concern in connection with the provision of public services by authorities or persons designated in regulations by the Secretary of State.
Subsection (5) provides that an authority or person may be designated generally or in respect of particular services. Subsection (2) defines the circumstances in which a matter is of local concern to a local authority as circumstances in which the matter affects the local area, or its inhabitants, to a greater degree than other areas or their inhabitants.
Subsection (3) defines the term public service. For the purposes of the Bill, a public service includes not just services provided to the public in the exercise of functions of a public nature, but also those carried out under statutory authority, such as by utility companies, or those that are wholly or partly funded by central or local government through grants, subsidies or other financial assistance. It is immaterial whether such a service is delivered by a public authority or by another body, be it public, private or voluntary, and whether charges are made for the service.
I have set out the key terms that set the parameters for the scrutiny powers in the Bill. They establish the scope and range of the powers and the circumstances in which they can be used by overview and scrutiny committees. They are important parameters. While providing a broad framework for enhanced scrutiny powers for councils, they also ensure that scrutiny remains focused on local issues and stays true to its purpose, which is to be constructive in examining, and suggesting improvements on, issues of real local concern.
Subsections (4) and (5) provide that the new powers will apply only to bodies that have been designatedeither generally or in respect of particular servicesby regulations. There is scope within the framework for the Secretary of State to designate a wide range of persons or authorities as being subject to the enhanced scrutiny regime.
On Second Reading, hon. Members raised concerns about the broad scope of the regulation-making power and sought further details about the types of body that will be subject to the enhanced regime. Decisions on which bodies will be specified as being subject to the regime are ultimately for the Government to take, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an indication of the Governments thinking on that issue today. In any case, subsection (6) provides that regulations designating bodies as subject to part 1 of the Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so Parliament will have the opportunity to consider and debate designation of particular bodies.

Jacqui Lait: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mrs. Humble. This is the first time I have sat under your chairmanship, but in the brief, few minutes in which you have been in the Chair you have established your personality, and I hope that we continue to proceed in such an amiable fashion.
I did not take part in the debate on Second Reading, but when I was first approached and asked to take part in the Bills proceedings, I read the Bill, and it reminded me of the title of a play by Pirandello, Six Characters in Search of an Author. It struck me as a case of Six Committees in Search of a Role. Then I started to read the Second Reading debate and discovered that my concern had already been voiced by others.
I have consulted my Front-Bench team, who are very disturbed that, notwithstanding the timetable problems, there has not been sufficient time to table the amendments that we would wish to have discussed in Committee, so that we could try to clarify the issues raised on Second Reading. We will almost certainly be tabling amendments on Report. However, I have no wish to hold up the Committee today, or to try to create a second Committee stage on another occasion.
I should declare that I, too, have an interest, because my husband is leader of East Sussex county council. It has an overview and scrutiny role, which he implemented successfully. The issue is, therefore, not a personal one to do with overview and scrutiny not being seen to be effective, because in East Sussex it is effective. It is the approach taken that is so important.
The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich pointed out in his Second Reading speech that district councils are excluded from the Bill. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that such councils will be included. It is the councils approach to scrutiny and overview that makes it a success or otherwise. If a burden of demand, regulation, officialdom, bureaucracy, cost and requirement is imposed, I am sure that it will not be long before marks are awarded for how effective the overview and scrutiny committees arewell, unless there is a change of Government.
A decent overview and scrutiny committee and a good council, with good relations with its various partners, should not need to require those partners to turn up for scrutiny. They should already be working together on any agreement, and should be happy to be open and honest about what is happening. If we need to impose burdens and regulations on partners, which should be willing to participate in the good management of their agreements with local councils, that is the mark of a poor council.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) made the point that there are still major ambiguities about which bodies the Bill will cover. I have seen a list, and most of them are public bodies, but one area is not clear. These days, so many local area partnerships involve charities and small and medium-sized businesses. If those bodies are affected, imposing a burden of scrutiny and overview will put extra costs on charities, which are raising money from the public in difficult times, and which should be looking after every penny, to the benefit of the work that they are doing under contract with the local authorities.
Small and medium-sized businesses are also struggling in these difficult economic times. They would have to face not just the cost involved, but the fact that the managements time would be taken up. In a small enterprise, that management can often be the boss, and the boss is already struggling with the extra burden of red tape imposed on businesses in the past few years. Yet another burden will mean that the expertise that small and medium-sized businesses can bring to the delivery of partnership agreements in various forms will be withdrawnbut not in some great confrontation; instead, next time, those businesses will not bid for the contracts. That expertise will therefore be lost, to the disbenefit of the public for whom everyone is working. We need to look more closely at, and have a much better and clearer definition of, the bodies that the Bill will cover.
I do not wish to go on for too long, but what matters does the Bill cover? Will it cover just what is in a contract, or anything that anyone has a bee in their bonnet about? How will a matter of interest to local people be defined? We all know, working in communities as we do, that for every person who has one view about a body, there is an equal and opposite view from someone else, with all gradations of views in between. If a local authority scrutiny and overview committee thinks that it can inquire into anything that it fancies, then I am afraid that it will turn against it the very people on whose behalf it should be working, or indeed the very people whom it needs to take along with it in order to deliver the services.
Clause 1 stand part may not be the best place to talk about the conflict-of-interest issues relating to allowing executive council members to sit on scrutiny committees. I apologise to the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for not having congratulated him on taking over, at such short notice, what is turning out to be a difficult Bill, but he did rather run through the Bill very quickly. I do not want to hold things up, and I am happy to be guided by you, Mrs. Humble, but I wonder whether I might point out briefly the concerns about the conflict of interest in allowing executive council members to sit on the scrutiny committees.
I have already raised the issue of the district councils. This is probably more a process issue, of interest to the Committee only, and not to the greater public, but the Bill extends the powers of joint committees, even though regulations to set them up are not yet in place. If the Minister can enlighten us on what she expects to happen, that might at least reduce the number of amendments that we are likely to table on Report.
With those broad commentsI am sorry, but they were not as brief as I had intendedI would just like to say that, as a matter of principle, I will ask my colleagues to join me in voting against clause 1 to register that we think that there are difficulties with the Bill that need to be addressed seriously.

Alison Seabeck: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to take your guidance, Mrs. Humble.
I welcome the powers in the Bill. I hoped that the Bill would get a fair wind, so I am disappointed to hear that we face a vote on clause 1. I did, however, have a concern about the clause. That is why I tabled an amendment, which was not selected. It might be slightly pedantic, but the use of the word greater in the clause gives me concern. Perhaps that could be described as a local concern, given the wording used in other parts of the clause.
I would welcome the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich on whether greater is restricting. It suggests that only where the impact or concern is deemed to be larger in one area than another will an issue fall within the remit of the clause, rather than where the impact of an action, or the decision of a body, is simply different in different areas. For example, let us say that there was a large project in an area that was bounded by three or four authorities, and that they were looking for a large pool of labour to be employed. We would expect the local Jobcentre Plus to be able to find work for a proportionate number of people from each of the local authorities. However, if one local authority was doing particularly badly, and local concern was raised by local residents, who did not feel that the performance was as it should be, it might be a question not simply of the number of people affected, but the service being offered. I would therefore very much welcome my right hon. Friends views on the word greater and on whether, on Report, an amendment might be appropriate, so that we could revisit the issue and bring forward a different wordperhaps the word different.
I understand that there is a need to ensure that the clause is kept as tight as possible to avoid local authorities being tempted to stray beyond their localitythat picks up a little on the point made by the hon. Member for Beckenhamand to hold to account those bodies affected by clearly defining local matters. However, there is a desire to avoid local authorities behaving in an almost vexatious or frivolous way by crossing boundaries, or taking a not in my back yard view.

Julia Goldsworthy: I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport, on the issue raised, under clause 1(2), about the extent to which the matter has to affect a local authority before it can come under the consideration of an overview and scrutiny committee. An example from my constituency of an issue that is subject to an overview and scrutiny committee decision is the transfer of upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery to Derriford. People in Devon will have a completely different experience and attitude towards that change from people in Cornwall. We could have an argument about who experienced the greater impact, but we can certainly argue that people have different experiences and real concerns that need to be raised. That is an important difference that needs to be taken into account.
I was slightly confused by the comments made by the hon. Member for Beckenham. On the one hand, she says that councils already undertake such scrutiny, so what is the need to add regulation? On the other hand, she says that the requirement will be an additional burden. I am not sure how both things can apply at the same time.
Mrs. Laitrose

Julia Goldsworthy: If I may make a further comment on the points that the hon. Lady made, it is very important that local authorities should be able to call in and scrutinise whomever they wish if there is public money involved. I am sure that plenty of charities and businesses would be keen to come before a Select Committee to outline how they felt public resources were being misdirected, or how money could be spent more efficiently. I see the scrutiny as a matter of proper engagement, working along similar lines to a Select Committee in this House. Some people come before a Select Committee because they want to make a positive contribution and make changes, and others do so because they have some uncomfortable questions to ask. That is entirely the right and proper process.

Jacqui Lait: I do not see why the hon. Lady thinks that there is a conflict between councils working closely with their communities, and therefore not needing the Bill, and the imposition that the Bill would place on local authorities because it is felt that these powers need to be there. A good local authority does not need the Bill. If we pass the Bill, we put on a burden. There is no need for the Bill if there are good local authorities. The key is having good local authorities.

Julia Goldsworthy: I still cannot see that the contradiction has been resolved. Either the council is already doing it and therefore having it backed up by legislation simply reinforces that, or it is an additional burden. Both cannot be the case.
I note the comments by the Local Government Association, which welcomed the fact that the Bill would strengthen the available powers of scrutiny. More generally, I welcome the opportunity to debate the Bill. It is important that we give it a fair wind. We have to remember that local authorities are democratically accountable to their communities. If anything is lacking in the delivery of public services, it is that there is not enough democratic accountability. Although I personally would like to see that rolled out more directly, setting up overview and scrutiny committees goes some way to ensure a closer look at the impact of the delivery of public services at a local level and greater democratic accountability.
The proposals should dovetail quite well with the Total Place pilots that are going on. This is ultimately not just about what is being done in public services at a local level but about how money is spent. Local people have a right to understand how public services are being delivered at a local level and how money is being spent effectively.
Thinking back to the Sustainable Communities Act 2007which started as another private Members Bill whose scrutiny I participated inone of the big challenges that I found when talking to my own local authorities about that Bill, which introduced powers that went way beyond local authorities existing remit, was that they found it difficult to get their heads round the fact that they were allowed to have an opinion on things that went beyond their existing responsibilities. Similarly, some councils may find it slightly odd that they are now allowed to have a view on things that are beyond their existing remit. That is why it is important to have it backed up in legislation. It will complement Total Place, which I am concerned is too much of a bureaucratic exercise at the moment. It is useful for people sitting round a table discussing local area agreements, but there is an opportunity to engage people and to try to get them to participate, which is one reason why we should welcome it.
Having said that, there are limitations to the way in which the overview and scrutiny committee system works at the moment. I would cite the decision-making process on the transfer of upper GI cancer surgery to Derriford. In that situation, we had an overview and scrutiny committee making a decision on whether or not there would be widespread consultation, which the wider public saw as making a decision on whether the services would transfer, which is a very different thing. The committee was presented with a petition signed by 30,000 local residents, calling on it not to transfer. At that point, we did not have a process for dealing with petitions. Even though we now have that as a result of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, that is a quantitative decision rather than a qualitative one.
There are problems with the way in which the overview and scrutiny system works. The public can become understandably confused about whether councils are expressing an opinion on a service for which they are not responsible, or whether they are scrutinising a service that they are responsible for delivering. The proposals do not deal with that conflict, but would ensure that a light is cast on the delivery of public services at a local level, so they represent a step in the right direction.

Alison Seabeck: Given the example of the transfer of the upper GI and the numbers involved, does the hon. Lady share my concern about the word greater? If people in Plymouth, Devonport, where we have a significantly larger inner-city population, were also to draw up a petition saying that we wanted that provision in Plymouth, we could by virtue of numbers alone probably outdo the hon. Ladys area. That word therefore needs to be considered.

Julia Goldsworthy: I completely agree with the hon. Lady. There is some inconsistency regarding the areas that overview and scrutiny committees can consider. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich pointed out in his initial remarks that utility companies, for example, could come under that consideration. However, if they could not be required to submit evidence or attend, that might make the process unsatisfactory.
Regarding the structures that need to be in place, a difficulty is that we do not know which organisations will fall under the remit. The decisions of the larger regional agencies, which are the obvious organisations to be included, will impact on many local authorities, and if the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport was adopted, those decisions could have many different impacts. I do not understand whether in principle those agencies would be included or excluded, nor how the system would fit with the Regional Select Committee process. To have that kind of scrutiny at a local level would be far more effective than Regional Select Committee system as it currently functions. I see that as not a perfect solution, but perhaps an improved one.
From what I have seen of the Regional Select Committee process, decisions are scrutinised after they have been taken, and it has been difficult to tease out the different impacts that decisions have had on different communities. There is still a lot, therefore, to be teased out, but I am happy to support the proposal, given where we are in this Parliament, and my broad welcome for anything that ultimately gives more power to local people, which I feel it does. I cannot see any reason to vote against clause 1.

Brian Binley: It never ceases to astound me how illiberal Liberals can be. We have just seen another perfect example of that in action. There was no thought about the individual who lives in our society, no thought about the possible concerns that the provision might place on them. It was simply said that we need to extend the power of Government at all levels, to get more involved and have more to say and to demand from these poor, depressed individuals, who are working to earn a living under the ever-growing burden of society.

Julia Goldsworthy: I think the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. If we are moving into a tight fiscal situation, it is important that every penny of public money spent is properly scrutinised and accounted for, regardless of whether the money is being given to a charity, a local authority or any other public agency. It is important that that money is effectively and efficiently spent.

Brian Binley: I am grateful for that homily. It did not really cast much more illumination on my point, but I was perfectly happy to sit and listen to it. Now, may I go on to talk about clause 3? [Hon. Members: No.] Oh, we are on the clause 1 stand part debatemy apologies. I shall come back.

Barbara Follett: It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mrs. Humble, and it is also a pleasure to work on a Bill that has generated so much interest, and on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is to be congratulated. He is to be thanked for taking the Bill forward at such very short notice. Although I was not present on Second Reading, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Austin), told me that at the time, there was significant cross-party support for the Bills aim of providing enhanced powers to local government overview and scrutiny committees. Just to make it clear to the hon. Member for Beckenham, district councils are excluded, but there should be local arrangements in place to allow them to contribute to joint scrutiny in two-tier areas.

Jacqui Lait: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. The point that I made in my few remarks is that the regulations for joint scrutiny have not yet emerged.

Barbara Follett: I am aware of that. Obviously there will be a timing issue, which we will have to look at. The Government wholeheartedly support the Bill because it implements the proposals set out in the Department for Communities and Local Governments Strengthening local democracy consultation, which was published last July.
There is not much more that I need to say at the moment, although I would like to deal with some of the matters raised in amendment 1. Clause 1 provides that the enhanced scrutiny powers in part 1 of the Bill apply when overview and scrutiny committees scrutinise matters of local concern, in connection with the provision of public services by authorities or persons designated in regulations by the Secretary of State. The bodies that we intend to designate in the first instance are local area agreement partner bodies, as the hon. Member for Beckenham pointed out. That will remove the current limitation on the scrutiny of activities related to LAA matters only, and recognise that the local contribution activities of partner bodies, such as Jobcentre Plus and the fire and rescue authorities, cut across the full range of local issues that arise and are not limited to the delivery priorities in LAA areas.
We also intend, initially, to extend the enhanced scrutiny regime to two new sectors by designating energygas and electricityand transport providers, such as train, tram and bus operators, as being subject to the regime. I am pleased to confirm that the Government will consult widely before making such regulations. The Bill ensures parliamentary scrutiny of a decision to designate any particular body or person. Hon. Members will have the opportunity to scrutinise and debate draft regulations laid before Parliament.
Our starting point is that the new scrutiny powers need to be limited to matters that are truly localin other words, matters that come under the new scrutiny powers are those that predominantly affect only the area of the council or councils undertaking the scrutiny. The Bill seeks to achieve that by providing that a matter falls within the ambit of the new regime
only if it affects the authoritys area or the inhabitants of that area to a greater degree than it affects the areas of other local authorities or the inhabitants of other such areas.

Jacqui Lait: I am grateful to the Minister for being generous with her time. This may sound trivial, but I want to return to the point about energy. The Government have just published their tariff for individuals who use microgeneration to feed into the grid. In rural areas, many individuals put up wind turbines, which generate extra electricity that goes into the grid. Will those people therefore be defined as energy providers, and hence subject to the overview and scrutiny committee? It is a small point, but if green generation takes off, there could be a big problem.

Barbara Follett: One of the things I most admire about local government, contrasted with national Government, is its common sense. I am sure that a great deal of common sense will apply when people are appointed.

David Curry: Will the Minister give way?

Barbara Follett: No. I will make some progress.

David Curry: I think that we could make progress, with some assistance.

Barbara Follett: I am not giving way.
I believe that the formulation encapsulates the aim of subjecting local matters to scrutiny, and excluding national and regional matters that go far beyond the areas of the council undertaking the scrutiny. However, the formulation does not mean that decisions that are taken about some local issues as a result of national policy are outside scrutiny. For example, if there was a policy about closing certain local offices of a national agency, the policy would not be subject to scrutiny.

Julia Goldsworthy: Is the Minister saying that some regional agencies will be excluded from the scrutiny process? Where would the delivery of convergence funding, for example, fall in Cornwall? The process is being delivered by the regional development agency, but it impacts only Cornwall. Surely, that is an example of how the work of a regional authority should be subject to scrutiny of a local authority?

Barbara Follett: I am not specifically excluding anything at the moment. I am saying that it will be about matters that are specific to that local area. How that is defined will be a matter for someone else.

David Curry: I was struck by a perceptive phrase used by the Minister. She said that she was struck by the common sense of local government as opposed to national Government. Will she elaborate further the instances where she thinks that the national Government, of whom she is a member, have not demonstrated common sense?

Barbara Follett: Common sense is applied at the local levelI speak as a regional Ministerbecause there is an attempt to work in a more consensual fashion. That is not the case in this Committee, however, and such behaviour turns the public off politics, rather than making them interested in it.

David Curry: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Barbara Follett: No. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn).

Jeremy Corbyn: I was trying to intervene on the Minister a couple of minutes ago, but the Minister was interrupted by Opposition Members. Will she explain a bit more about the consultation on the scrutiny of transport undertakings? Such undertakings are local, but they inevitably have implications that go across local authority boundaries. Is there a proposal for a consortium of local authorities scrutinising, for example, a tram system or local railway, or will it be strictly one local authority at a time, clearly making the scrutiny less effective?

Barbara Follett: My hon. Friends question echoes that of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne. Decisions about exactly how the scrutiny will operate will have to be taken. The idea is to build slowly and look at how we can make the proposal effective. We can expand a local area ad infinitum, but we need local authorities to be as effective as possible. At this point, I will conclude and commend the Bill to the Committee.

Joan Humble: Before I call Mr. Raynsford to reply to the debate on clause 1 stand part, as the Minister made reference to an amendment, I would like to clarify, for the avoidance of doubt, the fact that no amendment has been selected. We are debating clause stand part.

Nick Raynsford: I would like to focus on three issues. First, it is important to take the opportunity, on Report, to debate amendments that hon. Members wish to pursue, because of the short timetable that has precluded our doing so in Committee. I wholly sympathise with that view, and I wrote to all hon. Members before todays sitting to say that I would happily discuss any amendments they wish to table on Report.
Secondly, I emphasise the fact that despite the differences that have emerged this morning in Committee the Bill has up to now enjoyed all-party support, and I hope that it will continue to do so. The hon. Member for Beckenham made a point, which was echoed by the hon. Member for Northampton, South, about the possible burden and disproportionate impact on business, and it is very much a concern that we should get a balance and that the Bill should allow more effective scrutiny but should not impose unreasonable burdens.
I want to echo the views of the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) on Second Reading. She said that overview and scrutiny committees perform an important function, but that their powers need to be extended:
There is a growing recognition that overview and scrutiny committees need to have powers over a wider range of external organisations as they become more involved in local public services, and that councils should provide sufficient resources and support to those committees so that they can undertake more scrutiny.
The Bill seeks to address a number of issues, and we welcome its intention to increase local scrutiny powers.[Official Report, 5 February 2010; Vol. 505, c. 524-25.]
I hope that we can proceed on that consensual basis, with the clear undertaking, which I am happy to give, that while I continue to have anything to do with the Bill I want to achieve a balance between enabling overview and scrutiny committees to discharge those functions more effectively, across a wider range of organisations involved in public service delivery, without imposing any undue burden. Three points of detail have been raised, which I think will come up later. The hon. Member for Northampton, South, in discussing a possible burden on business, was worried about duplication. There is provision in clause 7 for joint scrutiny, which is also pertinent to the concern of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne about the Devon and Cornwall interest in cancer services at Derriford hospital. Again, joint scrutiny would probably be the appropriate response.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne both spent some time considering the words greater or different in the phrasing of the definition in clause 1. There is clearly a fine balance. If we are to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on the organisations that are scrutinised, there should be a focus on what is local, and what has a greater impact locally than it does elsewhere. The failure of a jobcentre to ensure that there are effective services for a particular area, to use the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport, may have a greater impact on the citizens of that area than on those elsewhere. However, I should like to take further advice on the issue, and perhaps we may return to it on Report.
I agree very much with the concerns that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne raised about the link with Total Place and the scope for scrutiny to give more sense of public engagement in something that I believe we all support as a concept, but which has seemed a little remote and technocratic up to now. Perhaps that is a good way to engage the public in an important issue.
The hon. Member for Beckenham raised two specific issues including, first, conflicts of interest between executive and back-bench members, which will come up in relation to clause 8, so I will not say anything more about it now. The second issue was district councils, which will come up under clause 6; we can perhaps pick it up at that point. I understand her concerns and hope that we will find effective answers. I am interested in how the regulations, which are crucial, will be introduced, although I am not in a position to give any guarantees on that. However, it is vital to get the right balance.

Jacqui Lait: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his conciliatory approach. However, I shall stick to my suggestion and encourage my colleagues to vote against clause stand part. This brief debate has revealed many flaws in the Bill, which need to be debated. Because of the speed of proceedings, which I accept the right hon. Gentleman did not necessarily desire, we have not been able to scrutinise the Bill thoroughly. To register our objection to the Bills flaws and to that speed, I encourage my colleagues to vote with me against clause stand part.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Excluded matters

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Raynsford: I shall be brief. Clause 2 sets out the circumstances in which the scrutiny powers in part 1 of the Bill do not apply. There are some necessary exclusions because there is existing legislative provision, for example in the Police and Justice Act 2006, the National Health Service 2006 and the Flood and Water Management Bill, which is currently before the House.

Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. Friend mentioned NHS scrutiny, and I recognise that there are existing scrutiny powers. May I draw to his attention a problem that he must experience in London, just as I do? A consortium policy has developed in all the regions of London in which the local authorities decide on a major reorganisation covering, in most cases, five or six London boroughs. The London boroughs have scrutiny powers within each borough but not beyond it, which means that a significant part of health planning is outwith any acceptable or effective public scrutiny. I have experienced this in the London north central area, which covers the five local boroughs, but I am sure that my colleagues in other parts of London have the same problem. I realise that this Bill is limited, but can he offer me any hope on this matter?

Nick Raynsford: When we reach clause 7, my hon. Friend will see the specific provisions relating to the scope for joint scrutiny. It is clearly appropriate for authorities to work together across a wider area where such circumstances apply. One of the important principles that has been maintained is coterminosity between the primary care trust and local authorities, which means that London has avoided some of the problems that have occurred elsewhere. However, I take my hon. Friends point. It is certainly an issue that should be considered in relation to joint scrutiny and the use of the powers in the Bill to cover a wider range of bodies than just those directly delivering specific services, because there is a wider impact.
As I have been reminded, health scrutiny is subject to separate legislation. That remains, but there is provision later in this Bill, so that where there is any doubt about the variable impact of different measures, the provisions in the Bill will be overriding. We are trying, in an interesting way, to extend scrutiny power, which has developed in a rather piecemeal way over recent years. This is helping to create a more coherent framework than the somewhat piecemeal approach that has followed legislation relating to specific services areas.

Jacqui Lait: This is a very interesting point. My first thought when the right hon. Gentleman began to outline the powers in the Bill was that there would be duplication of scrutiny. Would he be prepared to accept an amendment to the Bill to explore whether the overview and scrutiny committees would thereby repeal all the other scrutiny legislation that affects bodies such as health authorities, because they will just be swamped by people scrutinising them and not able to focus on patient provision?

Nick Raynsford: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady by saying that there is absolutely no intention of creating additional layers of scrutiny that would have the effect she fears. The Bill will ensure that there is scope for scrutiny in those areas where it is not currently possible for overview and scrutiny committees to require information or attendance. The powers are important, as her hon. Friend the Member for Putney recognised on Second Reading.
There is certainly no wish to duplicate measures. The way in which the Bill is drafted builds on existing legislation, rather than substituting for it. It would be difficult to accept an amendment that gets rid of all other powers, because that would leave a series of new holes. I am more than happy to talk to the hon. Lady between now and Report to see if we need an amendment to clarify the objective that I am absolutely in favour of, which is seamless scope for scrutiny without imposing additional and unnecessary burdens. With those comments, I hope that members of the Committee will accept the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Power to require information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Raynsford: The clause deals with the provision of information to overview and scrutiny committees. Subsection (1) provides that an overview and scrutiny committee may by written notice require a designated body or person to provide the committee with information to enable it to carry out its functions. It also provides that an overview and scrutiny committee can require such a body or person to send an appropriate person to attend before the committee to answer questions.
Subsections (2) to (4) provide that the Secretary of State may make regulations about the exercise of the powers. The intention is to ensure that appropriate provision may be made for the handling of personal and confidential data of all types. I hope that the Minister can reassure the Committee that that will be the case.

Brian Binley: Having had my rant about illiberal Liberals, not least because of the experiences that we suffered in Northampton under a Liberal council, I shall now proceed to the matter that I wished to raise in the first instance. However, because I was not wide awake, I failed to recognise at what stage we were at.
I served as scrutiny chairman for a sizeable time when the Conservative party was in opposition on Northamptonshire county council. We duly took control of that council, and my role changed. I am a supporter of scrutiny. It plays a vital part in local government and if we did not have scrutiny, many elected councillors would not have much to do. One of its purposes is to ensure that they are at least kept busy and off the streets.
I want to ask some questions specifically about the ability to summon people to provide information or, indeed, to attend scrutiny meetings in connection with the provision of public services by authorities or persons designated under regulation by the Secretary of State. I seek clarification of that particular measure. It seems to be a wide definition of those people connected with the provision of services. For example, many small businesses provide services for the provision of a wider service within the remit of local government. Will the clause include the many businesses that supply goods or services to local organisations, which themselves provide a wider and perhaps more specific service?
I recognise the value of local councils, but I also recognise their ability to be mischievous, and even more than mischievous on some occasions. I am worried about the power that will be given to councillors who wish to be mischievous, so I am looking for confirmation from the proposer of the Bill, who I know to be a very fair man, and I know he would be concerned if his Bill were misused in any way. He would certainly not want that.
I want to know about the legal situation. A small business that supplies a bigger organisation might be open to giving away information that might impact on it legally. What protection is there for people who might be summoned under the new legislation? We all know that scrutiny bodies do not have the right to summon people at the moment.

Alison Seabeck: Later in the Bill, protection for commercial confidentiality is set out. Committees can keep information confidential, so there is some security there.

Brian Binley: I did see that there was some security and I am grateful for that intervention, because that properly explains the situationsome security. I am looking for a greater degree of security for innocent people who could be summoned for mischievous reasons at a local level, particularly, if I may say so, in the run-up to an election.

Jacqui Lait: My hon. Friend will be aware that councils are responsible under the Freedom of Information Act. Given that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport mentioned that there would be commercial confidentiality, I wonder whether my hon. Friend might care to speculate on how the FOI would play into commercial confidentiality for small companies.

Brian Binley: That is what I meant when I made the point about illiberal Liberals. It is all very well to state in the Bill that there is some protection. I accept that, but once a matter gets into a formal arena, there is grave doubt that the protection will still exist; that is my concern.
I am also concerned about the mischievous nature of the clause. I am concerned about legal involvement and the cost to suppliers to the organisations. I want to ask the proposer of the Bill what evidence he has to suggest that people do not co-operate under the present arrangements. When we have asked for information from an organisation that is not directly accountable to a local authority, in my experience people have been very helpful and we have always got that information. What evidence does the proposer have that requires this rather more draconian measure? I favour maintaining a degree of freedom and independence from local authority involvement, particularly if it turns out to be a mischievous action rather than an action that is helpful to the local community.

Julia Goldsworthy: Once again, I am slightly confused by the point that the Conservatives are trying to make. They are either saying that all this already happens and people come forward and co-operate anyway, or they are saying that it is a massive additional burden, which will breach commercial confidentiality. I am not entirely sure how it can be both things. From a party that says that it has converted to the localist agenda, I have not heard anything to indicate that that is the case. From the comments that have been made so far, their apparent support for the Bill is massively grudging.

Brian Binley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Julia Goldsworthy: I have only a brief point to make and, having been generous, I would like to make some progress. The way in which the Warm Front scheme operates is an example of how public money and private companies could open up the need for the kind of scrutiny that we do not have at present. It is a national scheme involving large sums of public money, but in Cornwall we have very few installers, which means that we have had huge problems with installers coming all the way from Cardiff with no reputational stake in delivering a good service. As a result, people have their hot water and heating turned off and the installers simply do not come back. Those are terrible experiences, and it has been difficult to get information out of Warm Front.

Jacqui Lait: Warm Front is a national scheme. It is the hon. Ladys job to raise the issue here; it is not for local government to raise it impotently in the local area.

Julia Goldsworthy: As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, the scheme interacts with local authority grant funding to help deliver in areas such as Cornwall, where there is little gas heating and a grant is required from the local authority to ensure that some local people can afford it.

Brian Binley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Julia Goldsworthy: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, since he has been so polite.

Brian Binley: Thank you very muchthere had appeared to be some sort of anti-male attack. May I clarify a point raised by the hon. Lady? She claimed that I may want to have it both ways. Let me make it clear that I stand on the side of the great majority of individuals who are concerned about the over-mighty weight of bureaucracy and administration. That is the point that I am making, and I am making it with particular regard to small and medium-sized businesses, which might be mischievously impacted upon. I want to guarantee that that will not happen. I would have thought that every liberal in this country would support that point.

Julia Goldsworthy: I suppose all I can say is that I stand on the side of taxpayers who want to ensure that the money that they are being asked to pay is being spent effectively and efficiently on delivering services that benefit them. To return to my earlier point, Warm Front is exactly the kind of scheme where private companies receive large sums of public money and where there may be problems with delivery at a local level. It would be helpful to have a power to ensure that such a scheme provides appropriate information, so that the weaknesses of its delivery across a local authority area can be understood, debated and scrutinised. That is why the clause is important.

David Drew: I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs. Humble. I am sorry that I missed the first half hour. Had I known that it was going to be such fun, I would have rushed here expeditiously. It is good to see my good friend the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne present.
I want to make a point to my hon. Friend the Minister. How does the clause relate to the local spending reports in the Sustainable Communities Bill, which some of us have some knowledge about and continue to support as it progresses? I hope that the Minister will say some nice things about how the clause will connect with the ability for greater transparency on how different parts of the statutory sector are laid bare in terms of their funding, so that we can do a better job of spending the money subsequently.

Barbara Follett: The Government recognise the need for proportionality and the need to avoid duplication. That is why we intend to use the regulation-making powers in clauses 2 to 4 to ensure that there are certain safeguards and procedures in place to make sure that the exercise of the powers by councils does not impose a disproportionate burden on the bodies subject to scrutiny.
To reassure the hon. Member for Northampton, South, the duty to attend will apply to designated bodies only, and the regulations may need to make further provision to ensure that any burden is proportionate. Such regulations could provide that information already in the public domain need not be provided again, and prohibit overview and scrutiny committees from undertaking scrutiny reviews on a matter more than once in a period specified in the regulations. They could also make provision on the disclosure of confidential and personal information to scrutiny committees, and the description of who is an appropriate person for the purpose of designated bodies sending a person to attend a scrutiny committee hearing to answer questions. Our thoughtsas you can tell from this, Mrs. Humbleare what could be included in the regulations that are still at an early stage of development. As with regulations under clause 1, we intend to consult before making any regulations under these clauses.
I hope that, given these assurances, the Committee will see fit to accept the clause. In conclusion, I would like to say that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud that transparency is always to be welcomed. I welcome working with him on the extension to the Sustainable Communities Act 2007.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend the Minister has rightly highlighted that there will be consultation before any regulations are prepared. That gives the right opportunity for all interested parties, particularly the business community, to express views about the proposals. As I stressed in an earlier debate, it is a matter of balance. There is evidencesome anecdotal, but widely circulated and believedreferred to on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Putney, that in some cases, councils seeking information do not get the co-operation that they should from bodies such as utilities. Water companies are often mentioned: the leaky bucket story and other such events. In those cases, where one is dealing with very large organisations, there should be no reason for them not to provide information to a local authority when requested.
The hon. Member for Northampton, South is right to express concerns about disproportionate burdens on small businesses, and they should be taken into account during the consultation on the regulation-making powers. With those assurances, I hope that hon. Members will agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Power to require response to report or recommendations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Raynsford: Section 21(2)(e) of the Local Government Act 2000 provides that overview and scrutiny committees may
make reports or recommendations to the authority or the executive on matters which affect the authoritys area or the inhabitants of that area.
These reports will obviously have no effect if they are left to gather dust on a shelf unread. Clause 4 therefore makes provisions about what should happen after a scrutiny report or recommendations have been made. Subsection (2) provides that where an overview and scrutiny committee makes a report or recommendation under the provisions of the Bill, it may also by notice in writing require the designated body or person to have regard to the report or recommendations when exercising any function of a public nature.
The committee may also, in making a report or recommendations, require the designated authority or person to respond to the report within two months of receipt, indicating what action, if any, they intend to take. There are various consequential provisions, including those relating to regulation conditions. This seems a sensible way to ensure that scrutiny reports are not just left to gather dust on the shelf.

Jeremy Corbyn: I understand the point about the requirements of a limited time to replytwo months seems reasonable and fair. Would that also apply to private sector organisations, such as Warm Front, which receive large amounts of public money and virtually become a delivery agency for the public sector?

Nick Raynsford: The purpose of the Bill is to cover all those involved in the delivery of public services. The definition of public services in clause 1which includes services discharged either as part of a statutory function or as a result of receipt of grant from the public sectorwould cover those organisations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Power to publish response

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Raynsford: As we saw in Clause 4, committees may require a response, and clause 5 simply deals with the publication of that response. It provides that where an overview and scrutiny committee has published its report, it may also publish the designated authority or persons response. It ensures that scrutiny can be open and transparent and that the public are properly informed about scrutiny reviews. It also provides further incentive for bodies to consider properly and fully the recommendations made to them. Members of the public will be able to see whether recommendations have been taken seriously and to better understand the reasons given.

Harry Cohen: Under the clause, is it possible for the scrutiny committee report to be added to the councils minutes, which are normally published, rather than published as a separate document?

Nick Raynsford: The Bill leaves the overview and scrutiny committee a good measure of discretion to decide how it should act, and my hon. Friends suggestion of a power to append an item to another document is entirely sensible and reasonable. Ultimately, it is a matter for the local authorities to decide, and it is right that they should have discretion on this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Interpretation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Raynsford: I would not normally rise to speak on an interpretation clause, but this is the opportunity to discuss the role of district councils, which we should touch on briefly, as Members have raised the matter.
The one difficulty that will arise in the case of district councils in two-tier areas is the possible risk of duplication if more than one district were to initiate an inquiry on the same subject simultaneously. That would impose an unreasonable burden on local partners, so it is right that there should be a proper co-ordinated framework. On Second Reading, I expressed concern that the Bill appeared to convey the message that district councils in two-tier areas were excluded. That is not the intention; there should be a proper co-ordinated framework to ensure that issues affecting more than one area are the subject of joint scrutiny. There should not be the kind of duplication about which Opposition Members have rightly expressed concern.

David Drew: Would my right hon. Friend see this as an excellent opportunity to move towards unitary authorities as a matter of extreme urgency?

Nick Raynsford: Whatever my personal view on that subject, I think that we have had enough controversy this morning to lead me not to enter that particular minefield. I shall pass rapidly over my hon. Friends question.
It is my understandingthe Minister may wish to add her reassurancethat in no way is it the Governments intention to exclude district councils and two-tier areas. There should be a proper framework to avoid unnecessary duplication.

Jacqui Lait: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation, and I hope that the Minister can be equally positive. However, it still prompts the question of when the regulations, which are meant to be being prepared, are likely to emerge. Without them, district councils will be excluded. We are considering this legislation against the background of an imminent general election, so if the Bill progresses but the regulations do not, the district councils will be left out.

Barbara Follett: I should like to reassure the hon. Member for Beckenham that we will make the regulations a priority. I am aware of the cliff that we are all facing

Jacqui Lait: Over which I hope this lot all fall, but never mind.

Barbara Follett: I do not share the hon. Ladys hopes; in fact, I have entirely different ones. I look forward to the regulations being taken through the House but, sadly, I will not be here to see it because I am standing down at the general election.
Clause 6 provides that the provisions of part 1 of the Bill, which sets out the framework for the enhanced scrutiny regime, will apply to county councils in England and to London borough councils, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said. Part 1 of the Bill does not apply to non-unitary district councils.
That approach has been taken to minimise the potential burdens placed on bodies subject to the enhanced regimeI hope that the hon. Member for Northampton, South, will be pleased about thatand to reduce the ever-present risk of duplication. However, that is not to devalue the important work of non-unitary district councils in scrutinising matters of local concern. I can reassure right hon. and hon. Members that such district councils will continue to have a very important role, under both the existing and the enhanced scrutiny regimes, in holding to account and scrutinising the decisions of local public service providers.
Amendments made by the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to extend the enhanced scrutiny powers to joint overview and scrutiny committees. That will enable non-unitary district councils, working with their county council, to take full advantage of the new powers to hold local public service providers to account on behalf of their communities.
The Government intend to work with experts in the field of local government scrutiny to produce best practice guidance on the operation of joint overview and scrutiny committees when the new scrutiny powers that are set out in the Bill are used. That guidance may also include helpful suggestions and illustrative examples of how non-unitary district councils can become involved in that scrutiny work.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Consequential amendments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Raynsford: Once again, I would not normally wish to speak on a clause about consequential amendments. However, for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, who raised the issue of joint scrutiny of health services, I want to highlight the provisions in the clause that amend section 123 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to enable the Secretary of State to make provision in regulations for the appointment of joint overview and scrutiny committees of two or more local authorities that may discharge their powers in that respect. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the assurance for which he was particularly keen.

Jeremy Corbyn: That is helpful. However, my right hon. Friend may be able to help me on what might be a slightly arcane point. I was told by councils in my local authority last week that if they formed a consortium of north London authorities to scrutinise the London strategic health authoritys plans for the north central area, they would lose their ability to scrutinise the same plans at an entirely local level. It became a type of either/or situation, which seems a fairly ridiculous way of proceeding, because there are clearly regional implications, as well as very local implications, for any plans made by any health authority. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can help me with that point, or whether he just wants to think about it.

Nick Raynsford: I certainly want to think about it, because that point takes us right back to the key issue throughout our debate, which is the importance of achieving a balance between ensuring that there are not gaps in the scrutiny process and avoiding the risks of duplication and creating unreasonable burdens. That is the balance that must be achieved. I believe that what the clause does is correct, because it closes a gap; there was not the scope for the joint committees before. I would have thought that the right way forward on the issueI am just thinking aloud at this point

Jeremy Corbyn: Very dangerous. [Laughter.]

Nick Raynsford: It is always a dangerous thing to do, but those who know me know that I have form in that particular area.
My thought is that the sensible thing would be to have a joint overview and, in the course of that joint overview process, issues that are uniquely of concern to individual areas should be highlighted as part of the joint review, rather than there being a separate and duplicated scrutiny process.

Jeremy Corbyn: I accept that, and it sounds sensible. In some cases, the views of two local authorities might diverge completely, for example on the location of a specialist health facilitythe sort of issue that is familiar to all of us. We would not want a consortium of, say, five local authorities agreeing a majority consensusif such a thing is possiblewhile a minority consensus is ignored. Those in the minority cannot ultimately make their point to the Secretary of State on behalf of the people whom they represent. That could become a real problem in some areas.

Nick Raynsford: My response to my hon. Friend on the classic issue of the entitlements and rights of minorities in situations where they might be overridden by the majority view, but where they have a real local concern, is that their recourse is probably to options other than scrutiny. Ultimately, we are being taken into the political arena, and the ability of a public authority to highlight its concerns politically and to raise them with the electorate is probably a more powerful weapon.

Harry Cohen: May I take the opportunity to raise an issue on which I would appreciate my right hon. Friends comments? In my area, Newham is responsible for London City airport. It may agree, under its process, a change to flight times or arrangements. As part of that planning process, Newham consults around the airport, but not in neighbouring areas such as mine, which the planes go over. That causes some aggravation. Would it be appropriate for the local authority, under local pressure, to say, We want to look at Newhams consultation process, because it didnt apply to our area, even though it affected our area? Would it be legitimate for a scrutiny committee in Waltham Forest or Redbridge, for example, to do that, even though the decision was made in Newham?

Nick Raynsford: I will be cautious in response, not least because, as my hon. Friend knows, I have a similar interest, in that I live in and represent a constituency that lies under the flight paths to Heathrow and to London City airport. I am well aware of the issues in areas that are afflicted by aircraft noise but that are not themselves directly part of the consultation process.
My gut instinctit is always dangerous to voice it, and I probably should not do so, but I willis that the establishment of a joint scrutiny body might be the right way to overcome those fears and concerns. However, that is very much off the top of my head, rather than an official response.
On health, my hon. Friend the Minister might wish to have some words with her colleagues in the Department of Health to ensure clarity about how the scrutiny functions are properly discharged.

Barbara Follett: I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall indeed have those words with my colleagues.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Membership of overview and scrutiny committees

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Raynsford: We come to another issue highlighted on Second Reading and by the hon. Member for Beckenham this morning. I share her concerns, of course, because I voiced the same ones on Second Reading.
The effect of the amendments made by subsections (2) and (3) is to allow an overview and scrutiny committee to include members of the local authoritys executive, when the committee is not scrutinising matters relating to the executive. There are also powers to make regulations for further provisions to avoid conflicts of interest. My concern is to avoid creating false relationships, in which a local authority member might be a partner of a body one day and scrutinising it the next. That is a difficult situation, which should be avoided if possible.
My second concern is to avoid the overview and scrutiny members in a local authority to some extent having their important role usurped by executive members, who have far greater powers in the normal course of events. However, I accept that there might be circumstances in which, in the interests of good scrutiny, the expertise of an executive member might be useful as part of that process. I look to the Minister to say that there needs to be very careful drafting of the regulations to ensure that while the permissive power may be used in appropriate circumstances, it is hedged around with sufficient safeguards to avoid the two particular problems that I have highlighted.
Mrs. Laitrose

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Lady, I am sure, wants to add to those remarks, so I shall finish mine on that point.

Jacqui Lait: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I could not have put the point better myself. There is a potential resolution to the problem, because the issue of conflict of interest is very important and could lead to a lot of trouble in the future. There are not many councils I know that could be browbeaten, but it is possible that an executive member could browbeat the other members of the overview and scrutiny committee, and that is not a satisfactory situation.
Obviously, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich hopes that the Minister will reassure him, but I hope that it is possible to come forward with a joint amendment on Report to deal with the issue. My suggestion, as somebody who has observed local government but has never been part of it, is that the executive member could be a witness; they would then not need to be part of the overview and scrutiny committee. The witness could be called more than once if issues arose that affected any contract or local area agreement. That would be more satisfactory than putting the executive member in the unenviable position of having a conflict of interest, or of being accused of browbeating the committee.

David Drew: This is the one part of the Bill that I have some difficulty with, based entirely on my own experiences. The problem is, who decides who goes on overview and scrutiny committees and, subsequently, who chairs those committees? We all probably have, or know of, examples where a majority groupoften a very strong majority groupcan unfairly influence the whole process, which is based on our Select Committees. However, we come to some sort of arrangement here in the House of Commons through the usual channels; in local government there is no equivalent. It is quite within the power of a majority group to appoint its own chairsclearly not an executive, but its own chairsfrom that party to every one of the committee chairs and to influence who goes on the overview and scrutiny committees.

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Certainly, in my experience of local authorities, the majority group often seeks to appoint somebody. It is a paid position and a lucrative position. In effect, where the majority party appoints them, they become almost an addendum to the executive cabinet system that operates. That is absolutely the opposite of what the scrutiny committee should be and should do.

David Drew: And that is the whole point. Clearly, they are entirely reliant on those who appoint to keep themselves in that position. I ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to look at that issue. In fact, the problem goes beyond that unacceptable situation. I have seen examples of the majority group not only appointing the chairs but influencing who goes on the committees, to the extent that, where another group has put forward a proposal, the person in question has not achieved the satisfactory level of support and somebody elseeither from another group or even, ludicrously, from the same grouphas been put on that committee by another party. That brings into question the whole basis of the independence and objectivity of these committees.
One thing we pride ourselves on here is our Select Committees: if they are not independent and objective they are completely useless. That is why I am always nervous about PPSs going on to Select Committees, even in desperation when we have to make the numbers up. They are inevitably wearing two hats, even though the Committee may not be in their Ministers area. There is inevitably confusion if not in their minds, then in the minds of other Committee members anddare I say it?in the minds of those whom we represent. Which hat are they wearing at any one time?
We need to look at this issue. This is one of the few improvements to come from the loss of the committee system. As a long-term servant of local government I had some loyalty to that system, although I accept that it had its weaknesses as well. The problem is that in moving to the current system of overview and scrutiny, these committees have to be independent and objective and must be seen to be so. It is not acceptable to have people from the executive on them. I hope that we can look at this again on Report so we can establish that.
I am going beyond where we are now but this is a real problem in local government at the moment, and it could be a growing problem, because unless we nip it in the bud, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said, there will be some slippage. This could be quite a nice position for someone who is not on the executive but who is in a strong majority situation, and who could be encouraged to think that this is another job they can do.

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. A scrutiny committee chair is a paid position that is subject to annual appointment. In practice, what happens is that a council election takes place and an executive is established. A scrutiny committee chair is appointed, and they may even give up their own job to do this. I am sure that the knowledge that they may not be reappointed a year later fetters their judgment and their ability to scrutinise seriously what is going on. It is a real issue. If we are to achieve effective scrutiny, there has to be some degree of independence.

David Drew: My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich knows what I am saying, and I am in no way trying to wreck this laudable Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister also hears what I am saying: I am just describing what I have seen as real, practical problems. Even if they are not in any way what is actually going on, the perception of what could go on influences for the worse the best part of the reforms.

Julia Goldsworthy: The hon. Gentleman has highlighted some weaknesses in the existing system, which the clause could exacerbate. Perhaps there needs to be a wider rethink of the options available to local authorities. In some cases it might require a return to the committee system or a more effective counterweight to that. The key issue is that the set-up of the current overview and scrutiny system also muddies these waters quite a lot.
For example, the health and adult services overview and scrutiny committee scrutinises services that the council the local primary care trust delivers. Those are very different roles. In one case, it is clear why there might be an argument for having an executive member sitting on a committee scrutinising the work of the PCT, but it would be entirely inappropriate for them to be sitting on a committee scrutinising work they were undertaking themselves.
We need to work out whether it is possible to separate those two issues. Could the executive member attend at the invitation of the committee? That might be a way of doing it. Participation could be linked to a specific report or investigation, so that there was participation only on issues that went beyond the remit of the local authority, but that were subject to scrutiny by the committee.
I see some value in this measure if councils need to campaign on an issue. We should remember that councils not only deliver services but have a campaigning role to fulfil. I understand the benefit of an executive member adding weight to an investigation or scrutiny process, but we must ensure that the various elements are properly separated. I hope there is some way of doing that, and that the Minister and her officials will put their minds to it.

Brian Binley: I support the comments of the hon. Member for Stroud and others, and I agree that this is one of the greatest weaknesses of the overview and scrutiny process. It is not a party political thing in any sense; it spreads right across controlling groups from all political parties. I urge the Bills promoter to think about the matter in more depth. I know how wise he is, and he has tried to be so with the Bill, but I am not sure that it gives quite enough consideration to the problem.
I wish to make three points. First, scrutiny chairmanships can offer a massive opportunity to reward loyal retainers. That is the truth of the matter, and it is happening more and more. Of course, that flies in the face of the very purpose of overview and scrutiny committees. Secondly, the bigger the majority, the greater the problem. The very fact that there is a big majority means that there are not enough people from other parties to fill those roles. We need to think about that, too.
Finally, in such cases overview and scrutiny becomes an adjunct and supporter of the executive. Again, that totally undermines the reason for the overview and scrutiny arrangements that the Government initially proposed. Those weaknesses are not rare, but relatively widespread. I consequently urge the Bills promoter to see what he can do to make the business of overview and scrutiny a more effective tool for local government in such circumstances. At the moment, it could easily become a total supporter of the executive and thus lose all reason for its existence.

Barbara Follett: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, concerns about clause 8 were raised on Second Reading. In particular, Members were concerned that the provision would undermine the overall structure of accountability in local authorities, with scrutiny committees acting as a check and balance against a strong executive.
I assure the Committee that we do not intend to use the regulation-making power to blur the important distinction between the executives role in the strategic leadership of the council and the scrutiny committees role of holding the executive to account. Like the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne and others, we believe that there may be circumstancesfor instance, if a committee is scrutinising an external body on matters of local concern in which the council has played no partin which the capacity to enable members of the executive to be present could improve the scrutiny of such matters and may be more productive to the benefit of the local community.
Like the Committee, however, the Government realise that that could be difficult. Allowing each council to decide whether a member should be present could result in pressure, which is why I urge my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to work with me and my officials on a way forward that we could introduce on Report.

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful for my hon. Friends suggestion, and I would be more than happy to work with her and her officials. I would also like to engage other members of the Committee who have spoken on the matter. There is complete agreement across all parties that the issue needs to be addressed, and I would like to be able to table an amendment on Report that deals with it, while at the same time recognising that there may be merit, in certain circumstances, in deploying the expertise of executive members as part of such scrutiny. However, it must be on terms that do not undermine the role of the scrutiny committee.
Mr. Binleyrose

Nick Raynsford: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in just a moment. I refer to his speech in saying that I would not want such participation to create a situation where there is patronage and where the executive, through control of scrutiny appointments, essentially neutralises the effectiveness of the scrutiny. That would be a complete breach of everything that we seek to achieve with better scrutiny.

Brian Binley: I simply ask whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks this might be workable: one way of ensuring that the executive has no role to play whatsoever in the appointment of chairmen and members of the scrutiny committee would be to leave that for non-executive councillors to decide among themselves. I recognise that undue influence could still be applied in that scenario, but less easily so than in the present situation, in which the executive often decides who should be the chairman, vice-chairman and so on of scrutiny committees. They make decisions for their own reasons and not for the reasons of good scrutiny.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentlemans observation is interesting, not least because he makes it in the week in which the House will vote on issues relating to the appointment of Select Committee members. I would like to reflect on that. It would be difficult within the structure of the Bill to make far-reaching changes to existing scrutiny arrangements; nevertheless, he makes a good point.

Jacqui Lait: In the interests of co-operation, another thought that has crossed my mind is to give the executive member a status similar to that of an adviser to a Select Committee.

Nick Raynsford: The role of adviser, and the possibility of executive committee members being invited to attend by the scrutiny committee, rather than having a right to attend, as I believe was suggested by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, are both interesting options. I would like to reflect on them and speak further with colleagues and, obviously, with the Minister and her officials, then try to shape an amendment that would address those issues on Report. With that, I ask Members to agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Joan Humble: Before we move on to debate clause 9, Members may wish to note that, under the terms of Standing Order 88(2), I am normally required to adjourn the Committee at 11.25 am. However, the Standing Order also provides for me to defer the adjournment for a maximum of 15 minutesthat is, until 11.40 amif, in my opinion, there is a realistic prospect that the deferral would enable the Committee to conclude its proceedings during the sitting. That is my opinion, so I give notice to Members that the Committee will adjourn, at the latest, at 11.40 am. There can be no further extension beyond that.

Clauses 9 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Jeremy Corbyn: You do not need the 15 minutes, Mrs. Humble.

Joan Humble: My role is to facilitate the debate, and to ensure that Members have their say.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill to the House.

Nick Raynsford: Before we conclude our business, I thank you, Mrs. Humble, for presiding with great skill and charm over our interesting proceedings. I thank all members of the Committee for their time and contribution. I hope that, despite the difficulties that have emerged in the course of the Committees work, we can find a constructive way forward.

Jeremy Corbyn: There is an important point to be resolved with the Minister on the question of scrutiny committees and the chairing of them. Can my right hon. Friend indicate how quickly that can be done, so that we do not lose the opportunity of getting this valuable private Members Bill on to the statute book before the great reaper arrives?

Nick Raynsford: Alas, that poses all sorts of questions that I am not in a position to answer. As my hon. Friend will know, I have done my utmost to try to ensure rapid progress on the Bill. I will continue to do my utmost to ensure that it progresses constructively and, hopefully, with agreement through its remaining stages in the House. Beyond that, we are in the lap of the gods.
In conclusion, I thank the Clerks for looking after todays arrangements so efficiently, and I thank the police and others who have helped to ensure our proceedings are carried forward in an expeditious way. I recommend that the Bill now be reported, as the motion requires.

Jacqui Lait: May I add my thanks to you, in particular, Mrs. Humble? It has been a cheerful Committee, despite the degree of disagreement that has been evident. I was very interested in some of the Back-Bench comments. The Committee stage has shown which areas we need to work on on Report and which require more clarification, so your excellent chairing has allowed us to do that. I also want to thank the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for picking up the Bill at such short notice. We recognise how difficult it is. We will work to introduce the amendments that we think are required in the Bill. I thank my colleagues and other members of the Committee for teasing out the issues, and I thank everyone who has helped to ensure that we have been able to complete this Committee stage in relatively good order.

Julia Goldsworthy: Thank you, Mrs. Humble, for your very efficient chairmanship and for giving me another 25 minutes in which to speak. I would not go quite as far as the hon. Member for Beckenham and say that it has been good-tempered debate, although the mood seemed to improve as hon. Members woke up. We have discussed important issues that we hope to resolve before Report. The debate has also touched on wider issues, which perhaps exposed the Bills limitations. The issues raised about scrutiny committees and membership go far beyond what we have debated here. Perhaps that is something to which we need to return in a different debate. None the less, it has been worthwhile and I am pleased that it has ended on such a concordant note.

Barbara Follett: I echo the remarks made by colleagues. I have enjoyed the Bill and the work that we have done together on it. I would like to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North that we will work as expeditiously as possible to settle the matters before we see the grim reaper, whose actual time of arrival is not yet known.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.

Committee rose.